Would minimizing influence into the world be a safe directive to a general AI?
I like mindrime's answer as it identifies fundamental, applicable notions.  I'll attempt another short answer from a Game Theory perspective.

Game Theory was founded in the minimax principle.  Specifically, maximizing benefit while minimizing potential downside in a condition of uncertainty.  

Minimax works very well in contexts with easily definable parameters, such as combinatorial games and procedural optimization, but it gets more tricky in real-world scenarios where too many parameters may be present, resulting in a combinatorial explosion. 

Another issue regarding real-world applications arises from the symbol grounding problem.  In the paper clip scenario, the benefit sought (the goal) is clearly definable, and can be expressed mathematically.  By contrast, the downsides to be avoided are more difficult to define: "Don't destroy the world", "Don't use up resources to a degree that humans suffer", "Don't harm the environment" all rely on language.  This is to say they rely on terms that, at present, constitute symbols that cannot be grounded.  Thus there is room for misinterpretation that may yield unintended consequences.

"Minimizing impact on the system" (minimizing influence in the world) would be the goal, but how do you guarantee an automata has a clear understanding of what this entails in every possible scenario?